Supreme Court weighs whether EPA approval blocks state pesticide lawsuits against Monsanto

The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Durnell v. Monsanto, examining whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state-court tort claims by individuals who say exposure to Monsanto''s Roundup weed killer caused their cancer. Monsanto''s parent company Bayer has faced billions of dollars in jury verdicts from plaintiffs who allege glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, causes non-Hodgkin''s lymphoma. FIFRA requires EPA to review and approve all pesticide labels. Monsanto argues that since EPA approved Roundup''s label — which does not warn of cancer risk — states cannot impose different requirements through the civil justice system, because such liability would function as a state-law labeling requirement. The case has enormous financial stakes for Bayer, which has paid out more than $11 billion in U.S. settlements and faces thousands more lawsuits. If the Supreme Court rules for Monsanto, it would effectively end the wave of litigation. If it rules for plaintiffs, it preserves state-level cancer liability claims against pesticides approved by federal agencies. The outcome will also affect liability rules across other federally regulated consumer products.